Novel anterior coracoglenoid line utilizing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) corresponds with critical glenoid bone loss.

OBJECTIVE: Glenoid bone loss is estimated using a best-fit circle method and requires software tools that may not be available. Our hypothesis is that a vertical reference line drawn parallel to the long axis of the glenoid and passing through the inflection point of the coracoid and glenoid will represent a demarcation line of approximately 20% of the glenoid. Our aim is to establish a more efficient method to estimate a surgical threshold for glenoid insufficiency. METHODS: Fifty patients with normal glenoid anatomy were randomly chosen from an orthopedic surgeon's database. Two orthopedic surgeons utilized T1-weighted sagittal MRIs and the coracoglenoid line technique to determine the percentage of bony glenoid anterior to vertical line. Two musculoskeletal radiologists measured the same 50 glenoids using the circle technique. Differences were determined using dependent t test. Reliability was compared using interclass correlation coefficient and Kappa. Validity was compared using Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Mean surface area of the glenoid anterior to the vertical line was on average 21.69% ± 3.12%. Surface area of the glenoid using the circle method was on average 20.86% ± 2.29%. Inter-rater reliability of the circle method was 0.553 (fair). Inter-rater reliability of the vertical line technique was 0.83 (excellent). There was a linear relationship between circle and vertical line measurements, r = 0.704 (moderate to high). CONCLUSION: The coracoglenoid line appears to represent a line of demarcation of approximately 21% of glenoid bone anterior to the coracoglenoid line. Our technique was found to be reliable, valid, and accurate.

Hypoalbuminemia Is Associated With Increased Postoperative Mortality and Complications in Hand Surgery.

Background: Malnutrition has been associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality in orthopedic surgery. This study was designed with the hypothesis that preoperative hypoalbuminemia, a marker for malnutrition, is associated with increased complications after hand surgery. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 208 hand-specific Current Procedural Terminology codes was conducted with the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2013. In all, 629 patients with low serum albumin were compared with 4079 patients with normal serum albumin. The effect of hypoalbuminemia was tested for association with 30-day postoperative mortality, and major and minor complications. Results: Hypoalbuminemia was independently associated with emergency surgery, diabetes mellitus, dependent functional status, hypertension, end-stage renal disease, current smoking status, and anemia. Patients with hypoalbuminemia had a higher rate of mortality, minor complications, and major complications. Conclusions: Hypoalbuminemia is associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing hand surgery. As such, increased focus on perioperative nutrition optimization may lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing hand surgery.

Steroid Injection and Open Trigger Finger Release Outcomes: A Retrospective Review of 999 Digits.

Background: Open surgical release of the A1 pulley is the definitive treatment for the common hand condition of trigger finger, or inflammatory stenosing tenosynovitis. Anecdotal evidence among hand surgeons has questioned whether or not recent steroid injection may be related to complications following open trigger finger release, particularly wound infection, but no studies have primarily studied this connection to date. We aimed to determine whether recent steroid injection was associated with postoperative surgical infections. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of 780 adult patients who had undergone open trigger finger release of 999 digits by 6 fellowship-trained hand surgeons at three affiliated hospital settings from January 1, 2014, to January 1, 2016. Data on timing of steroid injections relative to surgery, number of steroid injections, concomitant conditions, use of antibiotics, and postoperative complications including infections were gathered. Results: Steroid injection timing relative to subsequent operative intervention correlated with postoperative surgical site infection in trigger finger release. Older age and decreasing days between steroid injection and surgery correlated with infection rates. Other factors found to be associated with infection rates included smoking, use of preoperative antibiotics, and use of lidocaine with epinephrine. The other factors examined did not correlate with infection rates. Conclusions: Steroid injection, smoking, increasing age, lesser number of days between steroid injection and surgery, and use of lidocaine with epinephrine are risk factors for postoperative trigger surgical infections. We recommend careful preoperative counseling regarding higher wound healing risks for smokers, avoidance of steroid injections immediately prior to an operative date, and scheduling operative dates that tend to be greater than 80 days from the date of last steroid injection. We also recommend avoidance of epinephrine in the local anesthetic solution, as this may minimize surgical site infection risks.

Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Orthopaedic Literature, Part I: Upper Extremity: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) attempts to define the patient's experience of treatment outcomes. Efforts at calculating the MCID have yielded multiple and inconsistent MCID values. The purposes of this review were to describe the usage of the MCID in the most recent orthopaedic literature, to explain the limitations of its current uses, and to clarify the underpinnings of MCID calculation. Subsequently, we hope that the information presented here will help practitioners to better understand the MCID and to serve as a guide for future efforts to calculate the MCID. The first part of this review focuses on the upper-extremity orthopaedic literature. Part II will focus on the lower-extremity orthopaedic literature. METHODS: A review was conducted of the 2014 to 2016 publications in The Journal of Arthroplasty, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Foot & Ankle International, Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, and Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. Only clinical science articles utilizing patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores were included in the analysis. A keyword search was then performed to identify articles that calculated or referenced the MCID. Articles were then further categorized into upper-extremity and lower-extremity publications. MCID utilization in the selected articles was subsequently characterized and recorded. RESULTS: The MCID was referenced in 129 (7.5%) of 1,709 clinical science articles that utilized PROMs: 52 (40.3%) of 129 were related to the upper extremity, 5 (9.6%) of 52 independently calculated MCID values, and 47 (90.4%) of 52 used previously published MCID values as a gauge of their own results. MCID values were considered or calculated for 16 PROMs; 12 of these were specific to the upper extremity. Six different methods were used to calculate the MCID. Calculated MCIDs had a wide range of values for the same PROM (e.g., 8 to 36 points for Constant-Murley scores and 6.4 to 17 points for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] scores). CONCLUSIONS: Determining useful MCID values remains elusive and is compounded by the proliferation of PROMs in the field of orthopaedics. The fundamentals of MCID calculation methods should be critically evaluated. If necessary, these methods should be corrected or abandoned. Furthermore, the type of change intended to be measured should be clarified: beneficial, detrimental, or small or large changes. There should also be assurance that the calculation method actually measures the intended change. Finally, the measurement error should consistently be reported. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The MCID is increasingly used as a measure of patients' improvement. However, the MCID does not yet adequately capture the clinical importance of patients' improvement.

Biomechanical characteristics of subscapularis-sparing approach for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: A technique for retaining the superior 50% of the subscapularis insertion for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty has been described. This cadaveric study biomechanically evaluates this subscapularis-sparing approach and compares it with a complete subscapularis release and repair technique to determine whether there is a higher load to failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve matched pairs of human cadaveric arms were distributed into 3 test groups. Group 1 consisted of specimens with and without a 100% subscapularis release. Group 2 consisted of specimens with and without an inferior 50% subscapularis release. Group 3 consisted of specimens with either an inferior 50% or 100% release of the subscapularis footprint and repair. All tendon repairs were performed using bone tunnels and sutures. Specimens were biomechanically tested using non-destructive cyclic and tensile failure-inducing loads. RESULTS: In matched pairs, the following comparative results were obtained: native intact subscapularis specimens exhibited a load to failure of 1341.20 ± 380.10 N compared with 380.10 ± 138.79 N in the 100% release specimens (P = .029), native intact subscapularis specimens exhibited a load to failure of 1209.74 ± 342.18 N compared with 744.33 ± 211.77 N in the 50% release specimens (P = .057), and 50% release and repair specimens exhibited a load to failure of 704.62 ± 165.53 N compared with 305.52 ± 91.39 N in the 100% release and repair group (P = .029). CONCLUSION: Preservation of the superior 50% of the subscapularis demonstrates a higher load to failure compared with complete subscapularis release and repair using bone tunnels.

Inpatient Outcomes in Dialysis-dependent Patients Undergoing Elective Lumbar Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Disease.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate hospital outcomes in dialysis-dependent patients undergoing elective lumbar surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Because of their overall poor health status and concomitant comorbidity burden, spinal surgery in dialysis-dependent patients represents a significant challenge to spine surgeons. Large studies evaluating their immediate postoperative outcomes in elective lumbar surgery are lacking. METHODS: Utilizing the National Inpatient Sample, an estimated 1834 dialysis-dependent patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative lumbar conditions were compared to an estimated 2,522,594 non-dialysis-dependent patients undergoing the same procedures between 2002 and 2012. Our primary outcomes measures included postoperative complication rates, hospital length of stay, and total hospital costs. RESULTS: Mean age of dialysis-dependent patients was 64.2 years compared to 59.9 in the non-dialysis-dependent cohort (P < 0.001). Dialysis-dependent patients had substantially higher inpatient mortality rates (1.8% vs 0.1%; P < 0.001), major complication rates (8.1% vs 1.1%; P < 0.001), and an increased need for blood transfusion (18.3% vs 12.5%; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that dialysis dependence independently increased odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio = 8.30; 95% confidence interval 5.78-11.93; P < 0.001) and odds of a major postoperative complication (odds ratio = 3.63; 95% confidence interval 3.49-3.89; P < 0.001). Dialysis dependence was associated with an increased mean length of stay of 3.3 days (P < 0.001) and a significant increase in hospital costs when stratified by procedure type. CONCLUSION: Dialysis dependence is associated with poorer immediate postoperative outcomes and increased hospital costs when compared to non-dialysis-dependent patients. In addition, an increased need for postoperative transfusion should be anticipated in this patient population. Further studies are warranted to confirm these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Spine Literature.

STUDY DESIGN: Review of the 2011 to 2015 minimum clinically important difference (MCID)-related publications in Spine, Spine Journal, Journal of Neurosurgery-Spine, and European Spine Journal. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the various determinations of MCID and to analyze its usage in the spine literature of the past 5 years in order to develop a basic reference to help practitioners interpret or utilize MCID. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MCID represents the smallest change in a domain of interest that is considered beneficial to a patient or clinician. The many sources of variation in calculated MCID values and inconsistency in its utilization have resulted in confusion in the interpretation and use of MCID. METHODS: All articles from 2011 to 2015 were reviewed. Only clinical science articles utilizing patient reported outcome scores (PROs) were included in the analysis. A keyword search was then performed to identify articles that used MCID. MCID utilization in the selected papers was characterized and recorded. RESULTS: MCID was referenced in 264/1591 (16.6%) clinical science articles that utilized PROs: 22/264 (8.3%) independently calculated MCID values and 156/264 (59.1%) used previously published MCID values as a gauge of their own results. Despite similar calculation methods, there was a two- or three-fold range in the recommended MCID values for the same instrument. Half the studies recommended MCID values within the measurement error. Most studies (97.2%) using MCID to evaluate their own results relied on generic MCID. The few studies using specific MCID (MCID calculated for narrowly defined indications or treatments) did not consistently match the characteristics of their sample to the specificity of the MCID. About 48% of the studies compared group averages instead of individual scores to the MCID threshold. CONCLUSION: Despite a clear interest in MCID as a measure of patient improvement, its current developments and uses have been inconsistent. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Evaluating the Effect of Comorbidities on the Success, Risk, and Cost of Digital Replantation.

PURPOSE: The clinical decision to replant an amputated digit is driven primarily by surgical indication. However, the extent to which patient comorbidity should play into this decision is less well defined. This study was designed to determine the effect of patient comorbidities on the success, risk, and cost of digital replantation. METHODS: All amputation injuries and digital replantation procedures captured by the National Inpatient Sample during 2001 to 2012 were identified. A successful replantation procedure was defined as one in which a replantation occurred without a subsequent revision amputation. Patient comorbidities were tested for association with failure of replantation, risk of postoperative complications, and overall hospital costs. RESULTS: We identified 11,788 digital replantation procedures. A total of 3,604 patients (30.6%) experienced revascularization failure associated with replantation. The risk for replant failure was highest among patients with psychotic disorders, peripheral vascular disease, and electrolyte imbalances. The risk for postoperative complications was highest among patients with electrolyte imbalances, drug abuse, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Hospital costs were greatest among patients with deficiency anemias, electrolyte imbalances, or psychotic disorders. Patients with more than 3 comorbidities experienced significantly higher failure, risk of postoperative complications, and cost of digital replantation. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that even when surgical indications are met, patients with more than 3 comorbidities and those who have a history of alcohol abuse, deficiency anemias, electrolyte imbalances, obesity, peripheral vascular disease, or psychotic disorders are at increased risk of replantation failure and associated postoperative complications. Assessment of this risk should have a role in decision making regarding whether a digit should be replanted. Patients at high risk should be carefully counseled regarding the difficult perioperative course before undergoing digital replantation. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic III.